Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31440612›Full record

ReviewSpine surgery and related research2017

Classification and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors: a literature review.

Yasuaki Tokuhashi, Hiroshi Uei, Masashi Oshima

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Spine surgery and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prognostic scores for survival as decisional support for surgery in spinal metastases: a performance assessment systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Primary Osseous Malignancies of the Spine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. The outcome of spine metastatic after surgery: a case series.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yasuaki TokuhashiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Japan.
Hiroshi UeiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Japan.
Masashi OshimaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate evaluation of metastasis and life prognosis is essential for selecting a suitable therapeutic strategy for metastatic spine tumors owing to limitations in treatment options. For this purpose, various classification, evaluation, and scoring systems have been developed.

methodsClassification, evaluation, and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors reported to date were identified by performing a literature search on PubMed. We reviewed the most cited classifications and scorings before 2009, and all classifications and scorings reported after 2010 from the search results.

resultsSix classifications and 23 scorings were reviewed. The classification/evaluation methods are divided into 1) anatomical classification/evaluation methods, 2) evaluation methods for neurological symptoms/instability, and 3) scoring systems for predicting life expectancy. The first 2 were useful for the planning and evaluation of surgical indications. Scoring systems for life prognosis also permitted rough prediction of the outcomes and were useful for the selection of a suitable treatment. However, variation of the patient background, diversity of adopted prognostic factors, and the absence of scoring systems that could predict the outcome with an accuracy of 90% or higher introduced some limitations.

conclusionThe identified classification, evaluation, and scoring systems have been generally useful for treatment strategies. However, we emphasize the necessity of multidisciplinary development and revision of classification and evaluation methods to adapt to the prolongation of survival associated with increased diversity and improvement of treatment options.

Indexed as

classificationdecision-makingmetastatic spine tumorprognosis evaluation systemsurgical indicationtreatment modality

Identifiers

PMID31440612
PMCPMC6698555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.